America’s New Diet Guideline Dodged Two Words — ‘Ultra-Processed.’ Here’s the Label Trick Food Brands Use Instead (and how to spot it in 10 seconds)
The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines deliver their harshest warning yet about industrial food—while strategically avoiding the term “ultra-processed.” That word swap changes what can be defined, enforced, marketed against, or litigated.
By TheMurrow Editorial
May 23, 2026
Key Points
- 1Spot the word swap: the 2025–2030 DGA condemns “highly processed” foods—while deliberately avoiding the more enforceable “ultra-processed” label.
- 2Track the hard-line stance: the guidelines say no amount of added sugars or non-nutritive sweeteners is recommended—an unusually absolute federal posture.
- 3Use the 10-second scan: look for “sugar,” “syrup,” or “-ose,” plus additive clusters like dyes, flavors, and preservatives to flag engineered staples fast.
The federal government finally found a way to talk about America’s modern diet without saying the two words that now dominate the debate: ultra-processed foods.
On January 7, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030. The 10-page document is brisk, blunt, and unusually rhetorical for a federal nutrition guide. It urges a “dramatic reduction in highly processed foods,” describing them as “laden with refined carbohydrates, added sugars, excess sodium, unhealthy fats, and chemical additives.” It even adds a bright-line statement many readers will find startling: “No amount of added sugars or non-nutritive sweeteners is recommended.” (DGA PDF)
Yet the phrase many expected—“ultra-processed foods”—is missing. Not as an accident of editing, but as a choice. Legal-policy and industry observers noticed immediately. A Covington analysis noted the guidelines “do not use the term ‘ultra processed foods’”, and industry coverage highlighted the substitution of “highly-processed foods” for the more contested term. At the same time, some mainstream reporting framed the update as the government’s most direct “call-out” of ultra-processed foods—while conceding the actual language is different.
This is not a mere semantic parlor game. In Washington, the words you choose determine what can be defined, measured, litigated, marketed against, or regulated. Nutrition policy is often made in the narrow gap between scientific uncertainty and political certainty. The DGA’s lexical sidestep tells you a lot about where that gap is right now.
“In nutrition policy, vocabulary isn’t decoration—it’s enforcement.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
The guidelines’ quiet controversy: “highly processed” vs. “ultra-processed”
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) carry unusual weight for a document most citizens never read. They influence federal food programs, shape messaging from public health agencies, and provide a reference point for schools, hospitals, and employers. That makes their terminology consequential.
The 2025–2030 DGA repeatedly pushes “real food” and instructs readers to “Limit Highly Processed Foods, Added Sugars, & Refined Carbohydrates.” Nowhere does it offer a formal definition of “highly processed,” and nowhere does it deploy the academically popular label “ultra-processed.”
Observers read the omission as strategic. A Covington analysis explicitly notes that the DGA avoid the term “ultra processed foods.” Industry-focused coverage said the guidelines use “highly-processed foods” instead of “ultra-processed foods.” These are not neutral substitutions. “Ultra-processed” has a life in research and activism, often linked to classification systems such as NOVA. “Highly processed,” by contrast, is looser: it can point to nutrients, additives, or both—without tethering the government to a single framework.
Mainstream coverage captured the public effect even while acknowledging the wording. Axios characterized the new DGA as a major “call-out” of ultra-processed foods—essentially describing the policy posture—while noting the text itself uses “highly processed foods.” That split matters: journalists and readers can interpret the thrust, but regulators and lawyers have to work with the precise phrase on the page.
The 2025–2030 DGA repeatedly pushes “real food” and instructs readers to “Limit Highly Processed Foods, Added Sugars, & Refined Carbohydrates.” Nowhere does it offer a formal definition of “highly processed,” and nowhere does it deploy the academically popular label “ultra-processed.”
Observers read the omission as strategic. A Covington analysis explicitly notes that the DGA avoid the term “ultra processed foods.” Industry-focused coverage said the guidelines use “highly-processed foods” instead of “ultra-processed foods.” These are not neutral substitutions. “Ultra-processed” has a life in research and activism, often linked to classification systems such as NOVA. “Highly processed,” by contrast, is looser: it can point to nutrients, additives, or both—without tethering the government to a single framework.
Mainstream coverage captured the public effect even while acknowledging the wording. Axios characterized the new DGA as a major “call-out” of ultra-processed foods—essentially describing the policy posture—while noting the text itself uses “highly processed foods.” That split matters: journalists and readers can interpret the thrust, but regulators and lawyers have to work with the precise phrase on the page.
Why wording becomes policy
A term like “ultra-processed” invites an immediate follow-up: According to which definition? A term like “highly processed” is broader, but also harder to enforce. Clarity can be politically expensive; vagueness can be administratively convenient. The DGA’s choice signals both the intensity of its message and the caution underneath it.
“The government picked a phrase that can travel far rhetorically—without committing to a single scientific yardstick.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
What the 2025–2030 DGA actually says—stronger than previous editions
Strip away the vocabulary dispute and the guidelines’ tone still stands out. The DGA frames the “Standard American Diet” as increasingly dependent on highly processed foods, and it ties that pattern to a country already deep into a chronic disease burden.
The opening message drops several high-salience statistics:
- Nearly 90% of U.S. health care spending goes to treating people with chronic diseases. (DGA PDF)
- More than 70% of American adults are overweight or obese. (DGA PDF)
- Nearly one in three American adolescents (ages 12–17) has prediabetes. (DGA PDF)
These figures do more than convey urgency. They establish a moral frame: diet is not lifestyle trivia; it’s a cost center, a risk factor, and a generational problem.
The language on sugar is unusually absolute for federal guidance. The DGA states: “No amount of added sugars or non-nutritive sweeteners is recommended or considered part of a healthy or nutritious diet…” (DGA PDF) That line is likely to echo across headlines because it steps beyond the typical “limit” guidance toward something closer to a normative ban—at least as an ideal.
The DGA also offers a quick heuristic aimed at ordinary shoppers: to identify sources of added sugars, look for ingredients that include “sugar” or “syrup” or end in “-ose.” (DGA PDF) It’s a practical move—less reliant on nutrition literacy, more reliant on pattern recognition.
The opening message drops several high-salience statistics:
- Nearly 90% of U.S. health care spending goes to treating people with chronic diseases. (DGA PDF)
- More than 70% of American adults are overweight or obese. (DGA PDF)
- Nearly one in three American adolescents (ages 12–17) has prediabetes. (DGA PDF)
These figures do more than convey urgency. They establish a moral frame: diet is not lifestyle trivia; it’s a cost center, a risk factor, and a generational problem.
The language on sugar is unusually absolute for federal guidance. The DGA states: “No amount of added sugars or non-nutritive sweeteners is recommended or considered part of a healthy or nutritious diet…” (DGA PDF) That line is likely to echo across headlines because it steps beyond the typical “limit” guidance toward something closer to a normative ban—at least as an ideal.
The DGA also offers a quick heuristic aimed at ordinary shoppers: to identify sources of added sugars, look for ingredients that include “sugar” or “syrup” or end in “-ose.” (DGA PDF) It’s a practical move—less reliant on nutrition literacy, more reliant on pattern recognition.
Nearly 90%
of U.S. health care spending goes to treating people with chronic diseases. (DGA PDF)
70%+
of American adults are overweight or obese. (DGA PDF)
Nearly 1 in 3
American adolescents (ages 12–17) has prediabetes. (DGA PDF)
The additives call-out
The guidelines explicitly tell readers to limit foods and beverages that include:
- artificial flavors
- petroleum-based dyes
- artificial preservatives
- low-calorie non-nutritive sweeteners
(DGA PDF)
That list reads less like classic nutrition guidance and more like an argument about the industrialization of the food supply. It also tees up the central question the document never fully resolves: is the problem processing itself, the nutrient profile, the additives, or the combination?
- artificial flavors
- petroleum-based dyes
- artificial preservatives
- low-calorie non-nutritive sweeteners
(DGA PDF)
That list reads less like classic nutrition guidance and more like an argument about the industrialization of the food supply. It also tees up the central question the document never fully resolves: is the problem processing itself, the nutrient profile, the additives, or the combination?
The politics of definition: why “ultra-processed” is harder than it looks
Policy fights often hinge on whether a term can be operationalized. “Ultra-processed foods” can be defined in academic settings, but the DGA is not a research paper; it’s a federal document with downstream consequences.
A legal-policy analysis from Covington flags the point plainly: the DGA “do not use the term ‘ultra processed foods.’” That observation is telling because it comes from a lens that worries about how language becomes compliance obligations.
A key tension sits in the DGA’s own rhetoric. The document points to “chemical additives” and “petroleum-based dyes,” while also attacking refined carbohydrates, added sugars, sodium, and “unhealthy fats.” Those are different categories of concern, and each implies different policy tools:
- If the problem is nutrient profile, policy leans toward labeling thresholds and reformulation targets.
- If the problem is specific additives, policy leans toward ingredient restrictions or approvals.
- If the problem is processing level, policy leans toward classification schemes that don’t always map neatly to nutrients or additives.
The DGA implicitly tries to cover all bases, but that breadth has a cost: it can leave readers unsure what to prioritize and leave institutions unsure what to measure. The guidelines attempt to bridge that gap by pointing to FDA “Healthy” claim limits as guardrails for certain snack categories, citing example thresholds for items like crackers and yogurt. (DGA PDF) That suggests an appetite for quantitative lines—yet the document’s signature phrase remains qualitative.
A legal-policy analysis from Covington flags the point plainly: the DGA “do not use the term ‘ultra processed foods.’” That observation is telling because it comes from a lens that worries about how language becomes compliance obligations.
A key tension sits in the DGA’s own rhetoric. The document points to “chemical additives” and “petroleum-based dyes,” while also attacking refined carbohydrates, added sugars, sodium, and “unhealthy fats.” Those are different categories of concern, and each implies different policy tools:
- If the problem is nutrient profile, policy leans toward labeling thresholds and reformulation targets.
- If the problem is specific additives, policy leans toward ingredient restrictions or approvals.
- If the problem is processing level, policy leans toward classification schemes that don’t always map neatly to nutrients or additives.
The DGA implicitly tries to cover all bases, but that breadth has a cost: it can leave readers unsure what to prioritize and leave institutions unsure what to measure. The guidelines attempt to bridge that gap by pointing to FDA “Healthy” claim limits as guardrails for certain snack categories, citing example thresholds for items like crackers and yogurt. (DGA PDF) That suggests an appetite for quantitative lines—yet the document’s signature phrase remains qualitative.
The regulatory shadow behind the rhetoric
When the government says “ultra-processed,” stakeholders can demand: Define it. Enforce it. Prove it. When the government says “highly processed,” it can communicate urgency while delaying that definitional showdown. That may be the point.
“A phrase that can’t be defined can’t be regulated—and can’t be sued over in the same way.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
How industry and media heard the message—and why both can be right
A smart reader might ask: if the DGA never says “ultra-processed,” why did so many people treat it as an ultra-processed crackdown?
Because the substance of the critique overlaps with what the public associates with ultra-processed foods: packaged products with long ingredient lists, engineered flavors, added sweeteners, refined starches, and high sodium. The DGA’s critique targets those features directly, even if it avoids the academic label.
Coverage captured that split. Some reporting described the new guidelines as a breakthrough moment—government finally putting industrial food on the defensive—while noting the actual terminology is “highly processed foods.” Axios did exactly that, framing the DGA as a major call-out while acknowledging the wording. That’s a fair reading if you focus on effect. It’s an incomplete reading if you focus on implementation.
Industry analysts, meanwhile, zoomed in on the word choice precisely because it changes exposure. A company can argue about whether its product is “ultra-processed” under NOVA-like logic; it can also argue about whether it is “highly processed,” because that term has no fixed boundary. Ambiguity can soften a blow even when the rhetoric is sharp.
Because the substance of the critique overlaps with what the public associates with ultra-processed foods: packaged products with long ingredient lists, engineered flavors, added sweeteners, refined starches, and high sodium. The DGA’s critique targets those features directly, even if it avoids the academic label.
Coverage captured that split. Some reporting described the new guidelines as a breakthrough moment—government finally putting industrial food on the defensive—while noting the actual terminology is “highly processed foods.” Axios did exactly that, framing the DGA as a major call-out while acknowledging the wording. That’s a fair reading if you focus on effect. It’s an incomplete reading if you focus on implementation.
Industry analysts, meanwhile, zoomed in on the word choice precisely because it changes exposure. A company can argue about whether its product is “ultra-processed” under NOVA-like logic; it can also argue about whether it is “highly processed,” because that term has no fixed boundary. Ambiguity can soften a blow even when the rhetoric is sharp.
What readers should watch next
The practical question is not whether the DGA “meant” ultra-processed foods. The practical question is what agencies, institutions, and litigants do with the phrase “highly processed” over the next five years:
- Will schools and federal programs adopt clearer internal definitions?
- Will “highly processed” become a proxy for added sugars and refined carbs, since those are measurable?
- Will advocacy groups push for the government to adopt a formal “ultra-processed” definition later?
For now, the DGA sends a loud cultural signal while keeping the technical back end flexible.
- Will schools and federal programs adopt clearer internal definitions?
- Will “highly processed” become a proxy for added sugars and refined carbs, since those are measurable?
- Will advocacy groups push for the government to adopt a formal “ultra-processed” definition later?
For now, the DGA sends a loud cultural signal while keeping the technical back end flexible.
The sugar and sweetener line that will reshape food fights
Among all the DGA’s lines, one is poised to outlive the news cycle: “No amount of added sugars or non-nutritive sweeteners is recommended.” (DGA PDF)
That sentence is not subtle. It treats both sugar and low-calorie sweeteners as outside the boundaries of what the government considers “healthy or nutritious.” The language matters because it refuses the common compromise: sugar is bad, sweeteners are the workaround. The DGA rejects the workaround too.
From a communications standpoint, the document then equips readers with a simple tool: scan ingredient lists for “sugar,” “syrup,” or the suffix “-ose.” (DGA PDF) That’s arguably more actionable than gram limits that require math, serving-size scrutiny, and a tolerance for tiny print.
That sentence is not subtle. It treats both sugar and low-calorie sweeteners as outside the boundaries of what the government considers “healthy or nutritious.” The language matters because it refuses the common compromise: sugar is bad, sweeteners are the workaround. The DGA rejects the workaround too.
From a communications standpoint, the document then equips readers with a simple tool: scan ingredient lists for “sugar,” “syrup,” or the suffix “-ose.” (DGA PDF) That’s arguably more actionable than gram limits that require math, serving-size scrutiny, and a tolerance for tiny print.
How to spot added sugars in 10 seconds (DGA heuristic)
- 1.Scan the ingredient list for the words “sugar” or “syrup.”
- 2.Scan for ingredients that end in “-ose.”
- 3.Treat those hits as a quick signal of added sugars—no label math required. (DGA PDF)
The trade-offs and likely pushback
The strength of the guidance is also its vulnerability. “No amount… is recommended” can be read as a health ideal rather than a realistic public directive. Many consumers will interpret it as permission to ignore the guidelines entirely—because absolutes can feel unattainable.
It also widens the scope of conflict. Food companies that reformulated away from sugar into non-nutritive sweeteners may now find themselves in the same penalty box. Meanwhile, public health advocates who focus on calorie reduction may argue that non-nutritive sweeteners still have a role as harm reduction.
The DGA does not settle that debate in the text we have. It does, however, make one thing plain: the federal posture is shifting from “moderation” language toward “avoidance” language—at least rhetorically.
It also widens the scope of conflict. Food companies that reformulated away from sugar into non-nutritive sweeteners may now find themselves in the same penalty box. Meanwhile, public health advocates who focus on calorie reduction may argue that non-nutritive sweeteners still have a role as harm reduction.
The DGA does not settle that debate in the text we have. It does, however, make one thing plain: the federal posture is shifting from “moderation” language toward “avoidance” language—at least rhetorically.
Additives, dyes, and the rise of “real food” language in federal guidance
The DGA’s “real food” framing is a cultural choice as much as a nutritional one. It is also where the document risks being both compelling and confusing.
Telling readers to limit artificial flavors, petroleum-based dyes, artificial preservatives, and low-calorie non-nutritive sweeteners (DGA PDF) pulls the conversation into a realm where people’s intuitions are strong and their information is uneven. Many readers already distrust additives; many also cannot distinguish between a preservative that prevents spoilage and a dye added for branding aesthetics. The DGA does not offer a taxonomy—it offers a vibe, and then a warning.
That warning may still be useful. It encourages consumers to treat ingredient lists as a signal of industrial manipulation, not just a list of nutrients. It also aligns with a broader public narrative: the food system’s problems are not only about calories, but also about manufacturing choices.
Telling readers to limit artificial flavors, petroleum-based dyes, artificial preservatives, and low-calorie non-nutritive sweeteners (DGA PDF) pulls the conversation into a realm where people’s intuitions are strong and their information is uneven. Many readers already distrust additives; many also cannot distinguish between a preservative that prevents spoilage and a dye added for branding aesthetics. The DGA does not offer a taxonomy—it offers a vibe, and then a warning.
That warning may still be useful. It encourages consumers to treat ingredient lists as a signal of industrial manipulation, not just a list of nutrients. It also aligns with a broader public narrative: the food system’s problems are not only about calories, but also about manufacturing choices.
A practical way to interpret the additives guidance
Without inventing definitions the DGA does not provide, readers can still use the document as a screening tool. If a product is:
- heavy on added sugars and refined carbohydrates, and
- reliant on artificial flavors/dyes/preservatives, and
- positioned as a frequent staple rather than an occasional treat,
the DGA’s intent is clear: it belongs in the “limit” category. The guidance is less about purity and more about reducing dependence—what the DGA calls a “dramatic reduction.”
- heavy on added sugars and refined carbohydrates, and
- reliant on artificial flavors/dyes/preservatives, and
- positioned as a frequent staple rather than an occasional treat,
the DGA’s intent is clear: it belongs in the “limit” category. The guidance is less about purity and more about reducing dependence—what the DGA calls a “dramatic reduction.”
Additive clusters the DGA explicitly flags
- ✓Artificial flavors
- ✓Petroleum-based dyes
- ✓Artificial preservatives
- ✓Low-calorie non-nutritive sweeteners (DGA PDF)
What it means for your grocery cart (and for schools, hospitals, and programs)
The DGA is written for the public, but it functions as a reference for institutions. That’s where the “highly processed” phrasing may have its largest consequences: procurement policies, menu planning, and nutrition education materials.
The document gestures toward measurable standards by referencing FDA “Healthy” claim limits as guardrails and giving category examples such as crackers and yogurt. (DGA PDF) That suggests institutional buyers might increasingly use front-of-package claims, nutrient thresholds, and ingredient screens together—because “highly processed” alone is hard to audit.
The document gestures toward measurable standards by referencing FDA “Healthy” claim limits as guardrails and giving category examples such as crackers and yogurt. (DGA PDF) That suggests institutional buyers might increasingly use front-of-package claims, nutrient thresholds, and ingredient screens together—because “highly processed” alone is hard to audit.
Practical takeaways you can actually use
Readers don’t need a federal definition to make better decisions tomorrow. The DGA provides several concrete levers:
- Ingredient-list triage for sugars: look for “sugar,” “syrup,” and “-ose.” (DGA PDF)
- Treat sweeteners as a red flag, not a health halo: the DGA recommends no added sugars or non-nutritive sweeteners. (DGA PDF)
- Watch for additive clusters: artificial flavors, petroleum-based dyes, artificial preservatives. (DGA PDF)
- Use “Healthy” as a guardrail where relevant: the DGA nods to FDA “Healthy” limits in specific snack contexts. (DGA PDF)
- Ingredient-list triage for sugars: look for “sugar,” “syrup,” and “-ose.” (DGA PDF)
- Treat sweeteners as a red flag, not a health halo: the DGA recommends no added sugars or non-nutritive sweeteners. (DGA PDF)
- Watch for additive clusters: artificial flavors, petroleum-based dyes, artificial preservatives. (DGA PDF)
- Use “Healthy” as a guardrail where relevant: the DGA nods to FDA “Healthy” limits in specific snack contexts. (DGA PDF)
Real-world examples (how the guidelines think)
The DGA itself mentions snack categories like crackers and yogurt when discussing guardrails tied to “Healthy” claim limits. (DGA PDF) Those examples are revealing because they’re contested middle-ground foods: some versions are minimally processed and nutrient-dense; others are sugar-forward or additive-heavy. The guidelines’ message is not “never eat yogurt.” It’s “stop treating the most engineered versions as default nutrition.”
Key Insight: The label trick in plain sight
The DGA’s rhetorical target looks like “ultra-processed” food, but the document uses “highly processed”—a looser phrase that’s easier to message with and harder to enforce.
The deeper question: are we fighting processing, or power?
Underneath the DGA’s language choice sits a bigger conflict: whether nutrition policy should focus on individual nutrients (sugar, sodium, fat), industrial processing, or the food environment that nudges people toward convenience and engineered palatability.
The DGA gestures at all three. It blames a “Standard American Diet” reliant on highly processed foods. It calls out refined carbs, added sugars, sodium, unhealthy fats. It flags chemical additives and dyes. It anchors everything to a national chronic disease ledger: 90% of health care spending tied to chronic disease treatment, 70%+ adults overweight or obese, one in three adolescents with prediabetes. (DGA PDF)
Those numbers function as the document’s moral authority. They also raise a hard question: if the crisis is this severe, why not use the strongest available terminology?
One answer is that strength can backfire if it invites definitional warfare. Another is that federal guidance is trying to reach beyond academic debates to ordinary readers. “Ultra-processed” is now common in elite discourse, but it still sounds technical to many households. “Highly processed” is more intuitive, even if it’s less precise.
The DGA may be betting that cultural clarity beats scientific taxonomy—at least for now. That bet will be tested in the only way that matters: whether institutions and individuals can translate the guidance into changes that stick.
The DGA gestures at all three. It blames a “Standard American Diet” reliant on highly processed foods. It calls out refined carbs, added sugars, sodium, unhealthy fats. It flags chemical additives and dyes. It anchors everything to a national chronic disease ledger: 90% of health care spending tied to chronic disease treatment, 70%+ adults overweight or obese, one in three adolescents with prediabetes. (DGA PDF)
Those numbers function as the document’s moral authority. They also raise a hard question: if the crisis is this severe, why not use the strongest available terminology?
One answer is that strength can backfire if it invites definitional warfare. Another is that federal guidance is trying to reach beyond academic debates to ordinary readers. “Ultra-processed” is now common in elite discourse, but it still sounds technical to many households. “Highly processed” is more intuitive, even if it’s less precise.
The DGA may be betting that cultural clarity beats scientific taxonomy—at least for now. That bet will be tested in the only way that matters: whether institutions and individuals can translate the guidance into changes that stick.
1) Did the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines mention “ultra-processed foods”?
No. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030 repeatedly use the phrase “highly processed foods” instead. Legal-policy analysis and industry coverage noted explicitly that the DGA do not use the term “ultra processed foods,” even as the document strongly criticizes the modern diet’s reliance on heavily engineered products. (DGA PDF; Covington)
2) What does the DGA say about added sugar?
The DGA uses unusually strong wording: “No amount of added sugars… is recommended or considered part of a healthy or nutritious diet.” It also gives a simple shopping tactic: look for ingredients containing “sugar,” “syrup,” or ending in “-ose” to spot added sugars quickly. (DGA PDF)
3) What does the DGA say about non-nutritive (low-calorie) sweeteners?
The same sentence that rejects added sugars also rejects non-nutritive sweeteners, stating that no amount is recommended as part of a healthy diet. The DGA also advises limiting foods and beverages that include low-calorie non-nutritive sweeteners, placing them alongside other additive categories it discourages. (DGA PDF)
4) What health statistics does the DGA use to justify its urgency?
The guidelines cite several striking figures: nearly 90% of health care spending goes to chronic disease treatment; more than 70% of American adults are overweight or obese; and nearly one in three adolescents ages 12–17 has prediabetes. These statistics frame diet as a national health and cost crisis, not merely personal preference. (DGA PDF)
5) Why might the government avoid the term “ultra-processed”?
The research and coverage suggest a policy logic: “ultra-processed” can trigger disputes over definitions and enforcement. Analysts noted the DGA’s deliberate choice to use “highly processed” instead. The trade-off is that “highly processed” is more intuitive but less precise—useful for messaging, harder for regulation. (Covington; industry coverage)
Editor’s Note
The provided article text ends mid-FAQ at “### 6) What ingredients or additives does the”. The JSON above preserves all content exactly as received, without adding missing text.
T
About the Author
TheMurrow Editorial is a writer for TheMurrow covering lifestyle.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines mention “ultra-processed foods”?
No. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030 repeatedly use the phrase “highly processed foods” instead. Legal-policy analysis and industry coverage noted explicitly that the DGA do not use the term “ultra processed foods,” even as the document strongly criticizes the modern diet’s reliance on heavily engineered products. (DGA PDF; Covington)
What does the DGA say about added sugar?
The DGA uses unusually strong wording: “No amount of added sugars… is recommended or considered part of a healthy or nutritious diet.” It also gives a simple shopping tactic: look for ingredients containing “sugar,” “syrup,” or ending in “-ose” to spot added sugars quickly. (DGA PDF)
What does the DGA say about non-nutritive (low-calorie) sweeteners?
The same sentence that rejects added sugars also rejects non-nutritive sweeteners, stating that no amount is recommended as part of a healthy diet. The DGA also advises limiting foods and beverages that include low-calorie non-nutritive sweeteners, placing them alongside other additive categories it discourages. (DGA PDF)
What health statistics does the DGA use to justify its urgency?
The guidelines cite several striking figures: nearly 90% of health care spending goes to chronic disease treatment; more than 70% of American adults are overweight or obese; and nearly one in three adolescents ages 12–17 has prediabetes. These statistics frame diet as a national health and cost crisis, not merely personal preference. (DGA PDF)
Why might the government avoid the term “ultra-processed”?
The research and coverage suggest a policy logic: “ultra-processed” can trigger disputes over definitions and enforcement. Analysts noted the DGA’s deliberate choice to use “highly processed” instead. The trade-off is that “highly processed” is more intuitive but less precise—useful for messaging, harder for regulation. (Covington; industry coverage)
